not sure if this is what you're saying, but just because something has multiple parts doesn't require a god to have designed it.

Click to expand...

No, but is unlikely to have self-constructed or result from random mutations.

When it comes to irreducible complexity, the things I've read have demonstrated, for example, that interim evolutionary steps which supposedly could have served no purpose regarding survival may well in fact have done so.

Click to expand...

They "may" have? How is that a refutation? It is a counter-argument, maybe.

There are other scientific discoveries that have really called into question the idea that the universe and our own little planet happened by chance. We have discussed the cosmological constant before. That is the fly in the "big universe" ointment that is driving the unsupported idea of multiple universes and the idea that there are non-carbon-based life forms out there somewhere.

Here are articles discussing information theory and probabilities of random life occurrence. 1 'supporting' the idea and 2 'refuting' the idea. IT can't be proven one way or the other at this point I find some of the handwaving pretty funny though since the topic engenders a lot of emotion and prejudices.

...There are other scientific discoveries that have really called into question the idea that the universe and our own little planet happened by chance. We have discussed the cosmological constant before. That is the fly in the "big universe" ointment that is driving the unsupported idea of multiple universes and the idea that there are non-carbon-based life forms out there somewhere.

Click to expand...

I don't think I've discussed the cosmological constant before, but I'm skeptical that any discoveries point to the notion that some "god" must be behind everything (I'm sure that doesn't surprise you .

If there are specifics you have in mind, I can run them by a friend who I'm sure is better versed in any of this than you or I, to get his take. He's a physics professor; not sure how strong his faith is but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish and thus should believe in God.

But do you have any idea how these supposed calculations were done? That's the point I was raising. if you don't know, no big deal.

Click to expand...

Information theory has math that will calculate the probability of receiving a signal based on the number of variables so the more proteins required for a complete base DNA, you can calculate the probability of those being randomly assembled. Information theory math is well understood it is how we get signals from satellites and across the internet.

The links talk about the assumptions behind various estimates depending on the number of variables, the critiques contend that there are other unknown combinations that could also produce life.

Of course one of the biggest for the materialist view is that no know mechanism is known for going from inorganic chemical processes to a living genetic code sequence that can self replicate.

Here is a paper on the general topic. In order to get the calculations used and referenced in the articles you would have to get books that are referenced in the articles where the authors lay out the case for the probability of life developing based on random chance.

I don't think I've discussed the cosmological constant before, but I'm skeptical that any discoveries point to the notion that some "god" must be behind everything (I'm sure that doesn't surprise you .

Click to expand...

You don't have to accept that "god" is behind it. You just need to realize that a physicist who believes in multiple universes without evidence is not different than a religious person who believes in God. You are free to believe what you want, just be honest with yourself and others about it (I mean the royal "you").

If there are specifics you have in mind, I can run them by a friend who I'm sure is better versed in any of this than you or I, to get his take. He's a physics professor; not sure how strong his faith is but I'm pretty sure he's Jewish and thus should believe in God.

Click to expand...

The cosmological constant essentially is the ratio of how fast the universe is expanding vs. how dense it is. For life to be possible, this ratio needs to be exactly where it is. There are five other constants that ID/scientific creationists point to as evidence of a finely-tuned universe:

It is fine to think that none of this means there is a God, but it does show that we are on equal footing in explaining where we came from: nobody actually knows.

To wit: here is one objection to the above:

Regarding this, Stenger argues: "We have no reason to believe that our kind of carbon-based life is all that is possible. Furthermore, modern cosmology theorises that multiple universes may exist with different constants and laws of physics. So, it is not surprising that we live in the one suited for us. The Universe is not fine-tuned to life; life is fine-tuned to the Universe."[18]

Click to expand...

Do we have a reason to believe that carbon-based life is possible or exists?

Because somebody theorises about the multi-verse, does that make it so?

Information theory has math that will calculate the probability of receiving a signal based on the number of variables so the more proteins required for a complete base DNA, you can calculate the probability of those being randomly assembled. Information theory math is well understood it is how we get signals from satellites and across the internet.

The links talk about the assumptions behind various estimates depending on the number of variables, the critiques contend that there are other unknown combinations that could also produce life.

Of course one of the biggest for the materialist view is that no know mechanism is known for going from inorganic chemical processes to a living genetic code sequence that can self replicate.

Here is a paper on the general topic. In order to get the calculations used and referenced in the articles you would have to get books that are referenced in the articles where the authors lay out the case for the probability of life developing based on random chance.

...
You don't have to accept that "god" is behind it. You just need to realize that a physicist who believes in multiple universes without evidence is not different than a religious person who believes in God. You are free to believe what you want, just be honest with yourself and others about it (I mean the royal "you").....

Click to expand...

I completely agree when it comes to beliefs and evidence.

Where I think the 2 diverge is that most scientists -- and any good scientist -- admits when their theory no longer makes sense.

That doesn't mean that a religious person needs to give up their faith just because something doesn't fit neatly -- but it does differentiate between religion and science.

...
It is fine to think that none of this means there is a God, but it does show that we are on equal footing in explaining where we came from: nobody actually knows...

Click to expand...

Of course -- that's why I attempted to make it clear earlier in the thread not only that I don't pretend to know but also that evolution isn't an explanation of where life came from and that science can't answer that question.

Do we have a reason to believe that carbon-based life is possible or exists?
Because somebody theorises about the multi-verse, does that make it so?
...

Click to expand...

I assume you meant non-carbon based life.

Getting way OT here, but these are 2 very different things to me. It may be because even just the concept of multiple universes is hard to comprehend.

But clearly, we don't know that either of these exists. My own view is that it's a little silly to rule out non-carbon based forms of life, given how vast the universe it. That doesn't mean we should insist they exist, but I have no problem believing that they are out there.

Actually the articles listed in my first reply listed assumptions for various estimates.

However an easy way to think about it is the lottery, you have a number of balls to win you select the right 5 balls and then a ball from a different group. In the case of powerball for example the odds of winning are 1 in 176 million.

So if we take the number of peptides and how they would have to combine in an exact sequence to create a DNA molecule perhaps it is more like having 10,000 balls and having to select 10 in the exact correct sequence.

The odds get very long, unless the rules of the game are rigged to produce outcomes. like the universal constants.

Actually the articles listed in my first reply listed assumptions for various estimates.

However an easy way to think about it is the lottery, you have a number of balls to win you select the right 5 balls and then a ball from a different group. In the case of powerball for example the odds of winning are 1 in 176 million.

So if we take the number of peptides and how they would have to combine in an exact sequence to create a DNA molecule perhaps it is more like having 10,000 balls and having to select 10 in the exact correct sequence.

The odds get very long, unless the rules of the game are rigged to produce outcomes. like the universal constants.

Click to expand...

right, but what I'm asking is, what is the equivalent of 1 ball?

It's easy to say the odds of x happening are long -- and they are, I'm sure. But the # of chances could also be just as mind-bogglingly large, given how large and how old the universe -- in fact, that could conceivably make it a near certainty that it would in fact happen, despite long odds on each discrete try. (Going back to the powerball example, with odds of 1 in 176 million, my chances of winning are slim if I buy 1 ticket. if I buy 100 million tickets? Not so far fetched anymore. if I 500 million? should guarantee a winner unless I've screwed up somehow, and could well wind up with multiple winners)

It's easy to say the odds of x happening are long -- and they are, I'm sure. But the # of chances could also be just as mind-bogglingly large, given how large and how old the universe -- in fact, that could conceivably make it a near certainty that it would in fact happen, despite long odds on each discrete try. (Going back to the powerball example, with odds of 1 in 176 million, my chances of winning are slim if I buy 1 ticket. if I buy 100 million tickets? Not so far fetched anymore. if I 500 million? should guarantee a winner unless I've screwed up somehow, and could well wind up with multiple winners)

Click to expand...

That depends on the assumptions of the person doing the calculation, is it an amino acid? a protein? Peptide sequence? A 'simple virus'?

THere is much hand waving on both sides because no one knows the answer.